DECISION NO. 2006RA001-147
Date: June 7, 2006
SUBJECT MATTER
The issue before the tribunal was an application made by the fire
department for authorization to do work relating to an Inspection Order
served on the owner of a multi-unit industrial complex.
The Order required that:
1. A complete fire alarm system is installed in the
building in conformance with subsection 3.2.4. of the
Ontario Building Code (OBC) –
to be completed by March 29, 2006.
2. Means of egress from all areas of the building be
provided through a system of public corridors
provided with emergency lighting and
exit signs in conformance with the OBC, so that travel distance
to exit does not exceed 45m, and
dead-end corridors conform to article 3.3.1.9 of the OBC –
to be
completed by April 28, 2006.
3. Fire separations be provided in conformance with
the OBC, between suites, between suites and
public corridors, and between exit
stairwells and all other parts of the building –
to be
completed by May 28, 2006.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
The building is three-storey plus full basement with a building area of
51,205 square feet, containing a mixture of close to forty medium and light
hazard industrial, personal service and mercantile occupancies. It is
constructed of a mixture of construction assemblies comprised mainly of the
combustible, heavy timber type and is fully sprinklered.
There are no fire-rated floor assemblies in place at any level, fire
separations to exit stair shafts are incomplete, and there are several
unprotected openings between floors including the freight elevator and stair
shafts. Fire separations between occupancies and between public corridors
and occupancies are lacking. The means of egress have several dead-end
corridors and travel distance greatly exceeds 45m in many parts of the
building. The building is not equipped with a fire alarm system and has
minimal and ineffective emergency lighting and exit signs.
APPLICANT’S POSITION
The
fire department reported that the building has changed its occupancy from a
warehouse into a multi-unit industrial use starting from the year 1990. The
new owner had promised to complete the items specified in the Order but the
fire department has not received letters of engagement from architects or
contractors to complete items two and three (see above). Therefore, it is
the opinion of the fire department that the work ordered is not likely to be
completed in any reasonable timeframe, putting the occupants at risk of
death or injury in the event of a fire. The proposed scope of work is
limited to correcting the hazards as outlined in the Order, and that the
fire department be authorized to retain engineers and contractors and obtain
building permits as necessary to complete the work as soon as possible.
RESPONDENT'S POSITION
The
owner indicated that he has committed to making all necessary life safety
improvements to the building since he took over in June 2004. He submitted
evidence at the hearing to show that he has retained an architect, applied
for a building permit and contracted with a fire alarm company to comply
with the Order. He complained that the compliance dates were very short and
impractical. As such, he proposed the following schedule that would give
more time to comply:
Item No. 1 to be completed by September 22, 2006
- Item No. 2 to be completed by December 31, 2006
- Item No. 3 to be completed by May 31, 2007
COMMISSION’S RULING
The Commission ruled that the application for authorization to do work be
granted if the owner fails to complete the items by the following dates:
Item No. 1 to be completed by September 22, 2006
Item No. 2 to be completed by December 31, 2006
Item No. 3 to be completed by December 31, 2006
The owner is also required to submit a Fire Safety Plan to the fire department
by September 22, 2006.
REASONS
The Commission heard evidence that the owner had opportunity to implement the
Order. The work is necessary to ensure the life safety of the occupants and the
visitors of the building. Reasons given at the hearing by the owner for not
implementing the Order were not acceptable to the Commission in view of the life
safety of the occupants of the units in the building. The Commission believed
that the work must be completed to ensure fire safety.